Honestly, considering all that's been done since, Austen's run seems so inoffensive now. The only thing I really never liked from it was Paige and Angel but that's cause I never understood what Angel got out of it beyond banging a 18-19 year old.
Honestly, considering all that's been done since, Austen's run seems so inoffensive now. The only thing I really never liked from it was Paige and Angel but that's cause I never understood what Angel got out of it beyond banging a 18-19 year old.
Here you go. I forgot about this. Now I need a mind scrub.
http://kurtidge.tripod.com/scans/441b.jpg
Wasn't a fan of it. But I'd argue it's better than the lead up to Age of X.
The only good thing about it is that he made Husk an X-men members. But nobody seems to know how to write her after Gen X
Who was the editor during all of this? They probably shouldn't have a job.
It was more interesting than X-Treme, and more digestible at times than "New X-Men." It's not necessarily good, but it's not the worst comics run out there. I'm happy that Chuckles has found more success in animation in any case.
Continuity, even in a "shared" comics universe is often insignificant if not largely detrimental to the quality of a comic.
Immortal X-Men - Once & Future- X-Cellent - X-Men: Red
Nobody cares about what you don't like, they barely care about what you do like.
Austen, Milligan and Tieri did some fun stuff then, better than Morrison and Claremont
I love her in it and Spider-Man/Deadpool and Thompson's writing, he's my favorite Thompson
Austen is not better than Morrison and/or Claremont. But Austen did much less damage for the X-men than Morrison, that I'm sure
That is what I want to know. Editors are always telling writers what to do, then seems like a editor thought Austen had good ideas and let the writer take all the blame